Thursday, December 31, 2015

Beginning
in our infancy, we instinctively learn to separate the self from the
other. The infant notices that there is indeed a physical separation
between them and their mother. With time, this separation of the self
increases and crystallizes into a unique identity.

This
separation is encouraged more in certain cultures like the West with
its focus on individuality and reason, while Eastern culture with its
collectivist outlook may prefer harmony and unity over the
fragmentation of the self. Be it as it may, one can analyze what the
separation consists of alongside its inherent criteria as well as its
possible consequences.

Physically
speaking, where does my body end and the body of the other begin?
This seems to have relatively clear marked lines as I can claim that
this pound of flesh is mine and is visibly separate from yours. To
protect my own body I may ask the other, among other things, to give
me some physical distance, which may be broken by loved ones.

Poetically
speaking, we overcome or annihilate the physical separation with our
lover, an act that is often portrayed as a mystical union in Sufi
tradition, for instance. In that sense, the touch of the lover will
connect my body with hers. It is only in love-making where physical
distinctions completely blur and the body becomes one. Put
differently, the body of the one merges with the other, becomes
indistinguishable and creates a new unified entity.

But
separation does not exist only on a physical level; there are also
various types of psychological separation. This can still exist
within those same aforementioned lovers where each holds onto a
separate identity. But in psychological terms, we may identify with
particular groups and as a result extend ourselves beyond the self.
For instance, we often see those who belong to our family as part and
parcel of our identity.

This
circle can be extended to include friends and acquaintances and
social, national and religious groups. Moreover, I may identify
myself with my city, my country, my religion and even my local hockey team, that is I perceive a connection between me and all the others
who belong to those groups. During hockey games, fans tend to easily
set themselves apart through their clothing and paraphernalia, while
in other situations people carry around pin-flags or wear crucifixes.

Groups
serve a number of functions. They can be a way of escaping ourselves
and our sense of loneliness. We feel as islands upon ourselves, but
the extension of the self towards others helps us alleviate some of
those lonely feelings. This can also be a manner of protecting
ourselves both physically and psychologically. By being one within a
group of people, we sense strength and support, and people are more
likely to help someone they perceive as similar to them than a
complete stranger.

And
in these situations who can be seen as a threat here? The enemy is,
in fact, the “other.” In that sense, anybody or anything that
represents something other or something different from us can be
perceived as a threat. For instance, imagine a family party in which
there is a person who does not have any ties to your family. That
person, due to his difference, may be looked upon as suspicious;
although he can never fully become one with the family (unless he
chooses to marry one of the other family members), he can manage to
override the differences by showing everyone that he is, essentially,
either similar to them (culturally, professionally etc) or that he
is, despite his differences, not a threat to the status quo.

The
desire to create and belong to groups has been existent since our
hunting and gathering days. Basically, our cave ancestors did not
want to risk their lives for others unknown to them nor did they wish
to provide food to those that did not belong to the group. In each of
their clans, they sought also protection from any external threats,
which could come in terms of animals or other humans / groups.

It
turned to be a good idea to expand the group by creating alliances.
Even that is a selective process. If your group is having an alliance
with mine and intermarriage would foment and fortify the link between
the two, then, ipso facto, this also meant and implied that there are
many other groups that are not
belonging to mine; they are different to the ideas, values or any
other characteristics that I cherish within my own (now extended)
group.

Alliances
have been an important tool in politics too. We form groups with
nations and ideologies that are essentially similar or at least not
seen as combative to our worldviews. For example, there are a number
of contracts, contacts and organizations ranging from NATO to OPEC
and even humanitarian groups, such as Unicef or Médecins sans
frontières.

The
alliances can be political in nature, or else ideological. In fact,
the common dividing factor in the past century was based on political
ideology. It was the ideals of communism pitted against those of the
West; this clash is often portrayed as socialism versus capitalism.
In today's world (years after the Fall of Communism), these
distinctions are made based on religion mostly (although religions
are used as political and propaganda tools by either party) and so
broadly speaking the Middle East is thrown against the West, Islam
apparently bumping heads with Christian values (while Islam itself
has its own divisions and clashes between its Sunni and Shiite
brands).

When
we identify with one of the groups and exclude the other, we feel
stronger and more accepted within our group, whereas we distrust any
member of the other group. The problem is that these perceptions of
the other - often based on hearsay - are almost always flawed by
being too simple, one-dimensional, stereotypical, and even grotesque.

The
Western idea of Muslims is highly distorted, and they are portrayed
as forms of caricature, the same way (or even worse) Hollywood movies
present the bad guys. This distortion goes both ways and also applies
to the other group, i.e. the US being referred to as the devil
incarnate.

What
then happens is that there are a number of misconceptions that, in
turn, give rise to outward prejudice and open violence towards any
member of those groups. In Canada, the fact that wearing religious
clothing could be a contentious issue among the voters can be only
seen as troubling.

The
West cannot pride itself on its values of liberty and acceptance by
simultaneously attacking some of its own members that belong to other
religions. The speeches by Donald Trump are essentially not that
different from the radical hatemongers he tries to disassociate
himself from, and that people on either side of the spectrum do not
fully notice this is alarming, if not downright terrifying.

What
can or rather needs to be done in this situation? This is, of course,
harder said than done. The turmoils seem to be beyond control and
terrorism threats seem to be around any corner. But to generalize and
put everyone in the same sinking boat cannot be the right path.

Too
see the folly of such thinking, just imagine the following analogy:
it would be like claiming that the extreme Christian right speaks for
all of Christianity and for all Christians across the globe; one
cannot throw together and discriminate against all shades and forms
of Christians from radical to liberal believer due to one
marginalized and defecting (defective?) group.

This
focus on religion harks back to the age of the Crusades. Yet to have
this today in our modern age is inexcusable. We have at hand not only
knowledge and experience, but also technology to safeguard ourselves
from such fallacies.

In
the past, people believed those distortions because they not only
lacked education and literacy but also they did not have much actual
contact with people of other faiths. Moreover, they did not have the
Internet. We are at a much more advantageous position and cannot
claim ignorance to our defence.

One
way to dispell the myth of difference as a threat is to actively
engage with others. Segregation only increases distrust and
suspicion, but what people in the West should do is to actively reach
out for those of different faiths. They can also start reading about
Islam itself and see for themselves that this religion (like most) is
being distorted and manipulated by those extreme voices.

In
any game, you cannot force others to play with you. If they are
different, they will have their own game and play by their own rules.
Nor do we have to play the same games. We can still say to them that
we accept them and have respect for their game, but essentially it is
not ours to play; neither group
ought to force the other to play something they have no wish or
desire to play. That way, we can eliminate conflict and increase
tolerance and acceptance.

Finally,
diversity is not a threat but an opportunity and even a sign of
strength. We cannot claim to be an open society and then exclude
others. We should see beyond the scopes and limits of our own group
and learn to understand the other and have compassion for them.

We
should be flexible enough to know that our group can be extended and
that there is indeed room for others; we should not permanently shut
our doors but give the “other” a chance or opportunity to enter,
should they wish. Chances are once we see them as fully-fleshed and
feeling humans instead of grotesque and one-dimensional cardboard
figures, we will see similarities between each other and not feel
threatened anymore.

Google Website Translator Gadget

Goodreads

A simple and straightforward overview of psychoanalysis with a focus on child psychology. Anna Freud's style is clear, compassionate and engaging.
I was quite interested in learning about the differences between the psychoanalytic treat...

Each / either field (Zen Buddhism / Psychoanalysis) is fascinating on its own terms but one day I felt that they were intimately and intricately connected and that turns out to be true! Although the book as a brief and general survey mer...